At 16:41 22/07/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
We have appeals to the IESG about IESG
actions precisely because the function of such an appeal is to
say "you may not have understood the issues correctly, please
take another look, considering these issues in particular"
Dear John,
you miss an important role of the appeal IMHO. The possibility to get
a documented position from the IETF on a point a WG process refused
to address. To protest that a point has not been addressed is unfair
if it has not been appealed - even if one known the answer. Users
will not know.
As far as I am concerned the most important contributions in the case
of RFC 3066 Bis were made by the IESG. To permit interoperability the
need was not to change the document but to get clear IETF positions.
I obtained many clarifications in the document itself, against my
propositions. The appealed points and their responses (for RFC 3066
Bis and the Draft in filtering) were/are necessary to the
http://bcp47.com which will document how to use the BCP from the
Multilingual Internet.
This should result in an I-D. I documented this a long ago. I do not
consider this as obstruction, but as normal, fair, and positive
Internet standard process application. This is what is DoSed: I fully
understand that this may irritate some who preferred a certain
confusion degree. However, if a BCP purposely does not document all
the existing practices the market may chose from, this must be
seriously and authoritatively documented. This authority can only
come from the IESG and of the IAB.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf